![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
walkitouthttp://online.wsj.com/article/SB124407903047283723.html
Ignoring a whole lot of stuff that shouldn't be ignored:
"Kevin Flynn, president of Healthcare Advocates, says his rule of thumb is that 80% of a usual-and-customary payment will cover just one-third of the bill. That's because insurance companies' projections tend to be lower than doctors' actual charges."
And then there's that new study out by several authors, the first of whom is _not_ Elizabeth Warren (but her name is on it), showing that the absolute percentage of bankruptcies due to medical bills has risen considerably between 2001 and 2007. Worth noting that there was a big change in the bankruptcy laws in the interim.
There are a couple of talking points for why we _won't_ or _should not_ nationalize health care (even in the very limited form of providing a Medicare-for-everyone option and/or mandate everyone paying for health insurance a la some New England states, which one only has to take a look at how that worked out -- families paying more for health insurance than their mortage -- to see that's not the best idea). One is that people really like their health insurance (really? who would _that_ be?) and won't want it mucked about with. Another is that people won't want to lose "choice" in health care to the government, or won't tolerate the "inevitable" rationing/waiting/wtf (yeah, cause people who have to choose between gas to get to work and filling a prescription are worried about rationing imposed on them by others). Another is that people won't want to pay the "increased taxes". Which is a little odd, given the "tax" involved in paying the not-covered-by-the-employer part of the premium (if you are lucky enough to have employer provided health insurance, which is getting less common by the day), and how fast it has been increasing.
80% = 1/3, tho. Wow. That ought to generate some discussion.
Ignoring a whole lot of stuff that shouldn't be ignored:
"Kevin Flynn, president of Healthcare Advocates, says his rule of thumb is that 80% of a usual-and-customary payment will cover just one-third of the bill. That's because insurance companies' projections tend to be lower than doctors' actual charges."
And then there's that new study out by several authors, the first of whom is _not_ Elizabeth Warren (but her name is on it), showing that the absolute percentage of bankruptcies due to medical bills has risen considerably between 2001 and 2007. Worth noting that there was a big change in the bankruptcy laws in the interim.
There are a couple of talking points for why we _won't_ or _should not_ nationalize health care (even in the very limited form of providing a Medicare-for-everyone option and/or mandate everyone paying for health insurance a la some New England states, which one only has to take a look at how that worked out -- families paying more for health insurance than their mortage -- to see that's not the best idea). One is that people really like their health insurance (really? who would _that_ be?) and won't want it mucked about with. Another is that people won't want to lose "choice" in health care to the government, or won't tolerate the "inevitable" rationing/waiting/wtf (yeah, cause people who have to choose between gas to get to work and filling a prescription are worried about rationing imposed on them by others). Another is that people won't want to pay the "increased taxes". Which is a little odd, given the "tax" involved in paying the not-covered-by-the-employer part of the premium (if you are lucky enough to have employer provided health insurance, which is getting less common by the day), and how fast it has been increasing.
80% = 1/3, tho. Wow. That ought to generate some discussion.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2009-06-07 05:39 pm (UTC)that is not what it used to mean
Date: 2009-06-07 06:19 pm (UTC)With more and more people no longer getting coverage through work (due to unemployment, or changes in benefits, or whatever), and larger and larger hikes in the amount they have to pay (passed through premium increases, copays, etc.), surely there is a turning point. If nothing else, everyone who is managing an elderly parent's health care and notices that elderly parent getting better care for less money than they and their own children are getting is going to be looking to switch.